Industry representatives are praising the new U.S.-EU safe harbor framework that promises businesses on both sides of the Atlantic a better legal footing. But privacy supporters remain skeptical about the legal basis of the new EU-U.S. Privacy Shield that aims to strengthen the privacy rights of millions of European citizens. The new data transfer agreement announced Tuesday (see 1602020028) replaces the 15-year-old safe harbor framework, and government negotiators said it provides stronger data protections for EU citizens and implements safeguards that limit data access by U.S. intelligence agencies. While the text of the agreement wasn't released -- and likely won't be for several weeks -- observers questioned whether the new framework could withstand a court challenge.

Industry representatives are praising the new U.S.-EU safe harbor framework that promises businesses on both sides of the Atlantic a better legal footing. But privacy supporters remain skeptical about the legal basis of the new EU-U.S. Privacy Shield that aims to strengthen the privacy rights of millions of European citizens. The new data transfer agreement announced Tuesday (see 1602020028) replaces the 15-year-old safe harbor framework, and government negotiators said it provides stronger data protections for EU citizens and implements safeguards that limit data access by U.S. intelligence agencies. While the text of the agreement wasn't released -- and likely won't be for several weeks -- observers questioned whether the new framework could withstand a court challenge.

A provision in the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act (PITFA) language currently attached to the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act (HR-644) that would require seven states that currently tax Internet access to phase out such taxes by the end of June 2020 would cost those states “more than several hundred million dollars” annually from the beginning of FY 2021 onward, the Congressional Budget Office said in a letter to Senate Budget Committee ranking member Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president. CBO also circulated its letter to Senate Budget Chairman Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., House Budget Committee leaders and the leaders of the House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee. The PITFA language, which would make ITFA’s provisions permanent, would require the seven states that were grandfathered when ITFA passed in 1998 to phase out their Internet access taxes over a four-and-a-half-year period. Phasing out the Internet access taxes in the seven grandfathered states would result in the loss of more than $100 million in potential tax revenue in those states during the final three months of FY 2020, the CBO said. The office estimates echo those raised by state and local tax advocates who have expressed concerns about the PITFA language. Those advocates said PITFA would also require the phase-out of localities’ Internet access taxes grandfathered in under ITFA (see 1512110058).

A provision in the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act (PITFA) language currently attached to the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act (HR-644) that would require seven states that currently tax Internet access to phase out such taxes by the end of June 2020 would cost those states “more than several hundred million dollars” annually from the beginning of FY 2021 onward, the Congressional Budget Office said in a letter to Senate Budget Committee ranking member Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president. CBO also circulated its letter to Senate Budget Chairman Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., House Budget Committee leaders and the leaders of the House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee. The PITFA language, which would make ITFA’s provisions permanent, would require the seven states that were grandfathered when ITFA passed in 1998 to phase out their Internet access taxes over a four-and-a-half-year period. Phasing out the Internet access taxes in the seven grandfathered states would result in the loss of more than $100 million in potential tax revenue in those states during the final three months of FY 2020, the CBO said. The office estimates echo those raised by state and local tax advocates who have expressed concerns about the PITFA language. Those advocates said PITFA would also require the phase-out of localities’ Internet access taxes grandfathered in under ITFA (see 1512110058).

A group seeking changes to rural healthcare USF received more opposition than support for its FCC petition to open a new rulemaking, in reply comments posted Friday and Monday in docket 02-60. Alaska Communications, CenturyLink and NTCA expressed resistance to the rulemaking petition filed by the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition. Although the SHLB filed a reply supporting its petition, and the Salvation Army’s Alaska Division and Utah Education Network sought certain changes, the latter two didn't voice clear-cut support for the petition. Initial comments were divided (see 1601150060).

A group seeking changes to rural healthcare USF received more opposition than support for its FCC petition to open a new rulemaking, in reply comments posted Friday and Monday in docket 02-60. Alaska Communications, CenturyLink and NTCA expressed resistance to the rulemaking petition filed by the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition. Although the SHLB filed a reply supporting its petition, and the Salvation Army’s Alaska Division and Utah Education Network sought certain changes, the latter two didn't voice clear-cut support for the petition. Initial comments were divided (see 1601150060).

T-Mobile’s Binge On service was the subject of renewed debate last week as Stanford Law School professor Barbara van Schewick, a frequent participant in FCC and other net neutrality fora, charged in an FCC filing Friday in docket 14-28 that the service violates key net neutrality principles and creates harms to Internet openness that the general conduct rule is meant to prevent. Binge On distorts competition, limits user choice, stifles free expression and harms innovation, van Schewick said. It limits users’ choices and creates a technical hurdle for providers, she said. However, Binge On is “perfectly consistent” with an open Internet, said one of several defenders we interviewed.

T-Mobile’s Binge On service was the subject of renewed debate last week as Stanford Law School professor Barbara van Schewick, a frequent participant in FCC and other net neutrality fora, charged in an FCC filing Friday in docket 14-28 that the service violates key net neutrality principles and creates harms to Internet openness that the general conduct rule is meant to prevent. Binge On distorts competition, limits user choice, stifles free expression and harms innovation, van Schewick said. It limits users’ choices and creates a technical hurdle for providers, she said. However, Binge On is “perfectly consistent” with an open Internet, said one of several defenders we interviewed.

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., tied what he hopes is a pending Senate vote on the conference version of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act (HR-644) to congressional approval of the Obama administration’s Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. “I hope we get that voted on in this work period,” said Thune, third-ranking Republican in leadership and chairman of the Commerce Committee, of the customs trade bill, speaking to reporters Thursday. “Right now, I think it’s just a function of making sure the votes are there on both sides.” He said “both sides are kind of working it” in recent weeks. This work period concludes with the Presidents Day recess, the week of Feb. 16. The customs conference report includes the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act language, a priority for Thune, who said earlier in January that he expected ITFA backers to override any point of order raised in an attempt to strip the ITFA provision from the trade bill and that he expected a vote soon on the measure (see 1601120070). Some in the Senate would prefer to see the ITFA language advance with the Marketplace Fairness Act rather than alone with the customs trade bill. “On ITFA, the Democrats here are trying to hold that up over MFA, but I think, you know, those are two very separate issues,” Thune said. "I’ve had conversations with Democrats in the Senate, obviously had some conversations with the White House, too, about getting them more engaged, but I think the message is we need customs in order to get TPP moving.” If there will be “any kind of vote on TPP,” the customs bill must move, because without its enforcement pieces in place, “the pro-trade Democrats won’t vote for it," Thune predicted.

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., tied what he hopes is a pending Senate vote on the conference version of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act (HR-644) to congressional approval of the Obama administration’s Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. “I hope we get that voted on in this work period,” said Thune, third-ranking Republican in leadership and chairman of the Commerce Committee, of the customs trade bill, speaking to reporters Thursday. “Right now, I think it’s just a function of making sure the votes are there on both sides.” He said “both sides are kind of working it” in recent weeks. This work period concludes with the Presidents Day recess, the week of Feb. 16. The customs conference report includes the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act language, a priority for Thune, who said earlier in January that he expected ITFA backers to override any point of order raised in an attempt to strip the ITFA provision from the trade bill and that he expected a vote soon on the measure (see 1601120070). Some in the Senate would prefer to see the ITFA language advance with the Marketplace Fairness Act rather than alone with the customs trade bill. “On ITFA, the Democrats here are trying to hold that up over MFA, but I think, you know, those are two very separate issues,” Thune said. "I’ve had conversations with Democrats in the Senate, obviously had some conversations with the White House, too, about getting them more engaged, but I think the message is we need customs in order to get TPP moving.” If there will be “any kind of vote on TPP,” the customs bill must move, because without its enforcement pieces in place, “the pro-trade Democrats won’t vote for it," Thune predicted.